There is no different between a deflection and a parry. Even with these two definitions:
1. deflect is not an attack
2. parry being a deflection is circular.

A parry is a deflection (usually with a weapon) and deflect just means to turn aside or deviate. Circle terms are the enemy. Alot of people won't even consider the existance of an unarmed parry. It would simply be called a deflection.

Edit: Also what is this guy translating from? English to English?

Chinese to english. The original descriptive names made extensive use of idiom and other cultural idiosyncracies. The english translations often just go for a description of the mechanics.

I'm talking about what that word is used to refer to within the context of the form.

Yes, a parry is a deflection, but within the context of the name of that movement, the "deflect" is fully known as "deflect downward" and is not illustrated in that video. Also, within the context of this movement, parry refers to a deflection to either side.

I agree that a parry is a type of deflection. I agree that, in essence, they could be the same word. However, the difference between deflect and parry within the context of that movement is the difference between a horizontal and vertical redirection of force.

I understand the idea but I have this odd feeling that guy never translated anything from chinese. Watching his video he appears to be unable to even remember which one is the parry or deflection and when it must be done. Now don't think that I'm telling you, your wrong I understand that the original technique may have been discussed this way. However, in the instance of this person, its incorrect. He did parry, parry, punch

I understand the idea but I have this odd feeling that guy never translated anything from chinese. Watching his video he appears to be unable to even remember which one is the parry or deflection and when it must be done. Now don't think that I'm telling you, your wrong I understand that the original technique may have been discussed this way. However, in the instance of this person, its incorrect. He did parry, parry, punch

He did not translate directly from the chinese, that is correct.

The posture names were translated back in the fifties and sixties. They vary from style to style, but this guy trained in the same system that I train in, at least in regards to the main form, so I'm familiar with the rest of the applicability of that technique.

It's a common practice to shorten the full name of "Step forward, deflect downward, parry and punch" into the shorthand "deflect, parry, and punch". I assure you that the deflect part of that is a completely different movement than the parry pat of it. It's confusing if you aren't familiar with the application, but if you study the form, it serves as an effective reminder of the various pieces and parts of the movement.

He did NOT illustrate the application associated with the deflect downward.

As I said before, the BASIC complete technique involves two kicks to the inside of the lower leg, a rollback movement, two parrys, the downward deflection, and the punch. The only part that he illustrated in that clip was the punch and one of the parrys, kinda. That's part of what i don't like about his illustration. It doesn't really communicate the true beauty of what they call "reeling silk" energy, which means that we're always at the strongest part of some technique> Basically, in theory, at any given moment, you've got another technique to transition into from an advantageous position.

On the other hand, though, if you show all the applications at once, folks start accusing you of mystic bullshit.

Yea so basically. He has no idea what technique he is doing. He failed to realize a parry/deflection is basically the same thing. He did TWO parrys (both outside deflections) and a punch. So he fails in his knowledge of what he is teaching. So in one single video (which was staged and they got to review he could have easily fixed the problem except for the fact he probably doesn't even know it was a mistake) he has basically debunked his own ability. I think this guy would be considered a step in the wrong direction for martial arts.

Btw, when your discussing an individual instructor try to keep the ideal seperate from the reality. The ideal of the technique may exist... but not here...

Yea so basically. He has no idea what technique he is doing. He failed to realize a parry/deflection is basically the same thing. He did TWO parrys (both outside deflections) and a punch. So he fails in his knowledge of what he is teaching. So in one single video (which was staged and they got to review he could have easily fixed the problem except for the fact he probably doesn't even know it was a mistake) he has basically debunked his own ability. I think this guy would be considered a step in the wrong direction for martial arts.

Btw, when your discussing an individual instructor try to keep the ideal seperate from the reality. The ideal of the technique may exist... but not here...

It's impossible to say whether or not he understands the complete technique from this video.

It's hard to show every technique of a movement in a single application, the way the system works, the name of the movement is the same, even if you're using a different specific technique. Perhaps he didn't feel the deflection was necesarry to show the idea of the particular application he was trying to get across.

The video is intended for folks who study the style, so they're not as likely to get hung up on things like that.

I get better instruction in person, so I'm not buying it, lol.

Like I said, he doesn't come across as the best, but it's better than old men waving hands in the park, at least.